politics and politicians
See other politics and politicians Articles
Title: BREAKING : Mark Levin “You Should Be Very Proud of Your President -a REAL Commander in Chief”
Source:
truthfeed.com
URL Source: http://truthfeed.com/breaking-mark- ... real-commander-in-chief/63246/
Published: Apr 8, 2017
Author: Amy Moreno
Post Date: 2017-04-08 09:56:09 by Gatlin
Keywords: None
Views: 20735
Comments: 81
Conservative talk show powerhouse Mark Levin praised President Trump’s airstrikes against a Syria airbase, saying, “that’s a real leader.” After eight years of feckless, dithering foreign policy from Obama and his administration, it’s refreshing to see STRENGTH and confidence back in the White House. On Thursday President Trump launched 59 Tomahawk missiles at a Syrian airbase believed to be housing chemical weapons. The U.S. attack was retaliation for a Syrian chemical attack on Tuesday that killed innocent women and children.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 32.
#6. To: Gatlin (#0)
There is absolutely no proof that the attack was ordered and orchestrated by Assad.
There is absolutely no proof that the attack was ordered and orchestrated by Assad. And there is absolutely no proof that a Tomahawk missile attack was ordered and orchestrated against Assad. Latest reports show him alive and well….he was not attacked. However, the Syrian air base from which the chemical attack was launched is a different matter. There are reports of heavy damage …
There are reports of heavy damage … There were fighter/bombers taking off from it today to fly bombing missions.
There were fighter/bombers taking off from it today to fly bombing missions. Of course there were Syrian aircraft taking off today from the air field. It was never expected there would not be. In fact two Syrian jets already took of from the air base on Friday that was hit by the 58 Tomahawk missiles early Friday morning. They also took off yesterday….and again today, as you stated. But there were 26 less Syrian aircraft available to ever take off from that air base….since they were destroyed in the missile strikes. There were 58 hits with Tomahawks to destroy those aircraft, along with infrastructure, the air defense radar and control center, work shops and the fuel depot. All this means heavy damage in English and the same أضرار جسيمة in Arabic. It was never the intent to pothole the runway to prevent usage. That would have been a waste of missiles since all potholes could have been repaired within hours anyway….for any surviving aircraft to start taking off Friday and continuing through the weekend. But take a look at this … This was the damage done only by two missiles. Stop and visualize this kind of damage to 56 other facilities and you should have a very good idea of what was meant by the usage of the term “heavy damage.” Again: All this means heavy damage in English and the same أضرار جسيمة in Arabic. You disagree? Are you saying there was not heavy damage? Edit Add: There were fighter/bombers taking off from it today to fly bombing missions. Of course there were Syrian aircraft taking off today from the air field. It was never expected there would not be. In fact two Syrian jets already took of from the air base on Friday that was hit by the 58 Tomahawk missiles early Friday morning. They also took off yesterday….and again today, as you stated. But there were 26 less Syrian aircraft available to ever take off from that air base….since they were destroyed in the missile strikes. There were 58 hits with Tomahawks to destroy those aircraft, along with infrastructure, the air defense radar and control center, work shops and the fuel depot. All this means heavy damage in English and the same أضرار جسيمة in Arabic. It was never the intent to pothole the runway to prevent usage. That would have been a waste of missiles since all potholes could have been repaired within hours anyway….for any surviving aircraft to start taking off Friday and continuing through the weekend. But take a look at this … This was the damage done only by two missiles. Stop and visualize this kind of damage to 56 other facilities and you should have a very good idea of what was meant by the usage of the term “heavy damage.” Again: All this means heavy damage in English and the same أضرار جسيمة in Arabic. You disagree? Are you saying there was not heavy damage? Edit Add: Russia said only 23 of the 59 missiles fired from US warships hit their mark, but that six Syrian jets and several buildings were destroyed in the attack. Another report says nine Syrian jets were destroyed.
This satellite picture and the satellite pictures in the link are from ImageSat International. This picture shows 44 hits….21 more than the Russians said, and 14 less that the US Navy said. There is no explained reason for the discrepancy in the Russian number. But it should be noted that some of the missile hits were probably double targeted. The reason for this is the first missile will weakened the reinforced structure and a second missile comes in moments afterwards for the kill hit. Also, on high priority targets, a double hit may be scheduled to insure severe damage or destruction. [The absence of the remaining 14 hits showing in the picture is speculation on my part and based on the target scheduling in the past….I have no idea what the procedures are today, but I would imagine the same purpose from the past would be served today]. Click here to see additional satellite images showing before/after of US missile strikes on Syrian air base.
That pic leaves a lot to be desired but it is a step in the right direction. I suppose I must be an extreme cynic not to just take their word for it.
I cannot understand why you are such a cynic on this. If you could show good reason the Navy lied....I could join with you.
We get less and less information about any military operation in recent years. And what we do get is increasingly exposed as unreliable. What we really get is just propaganda. Shallow propaganda at that. But maybe that is all the public actually wants and only a very few people like me actually want any details. Increasingly, the public is desperate to feel good about itself, I think. They elected (and re-elected) 0bama whose policies they never really supported because they felt good about themselves for voting for a black man for prez. You see the same sort of thing with this missile strike. People don't care how effective it was, where the missiles hit, how much damage was done. But they feel better about themselves for Trump having struck at Assad and his nasty gas and they liked those cute videos with the flag limned by the rockets' red glare of missiles launching (from a ship commanded by a Womyn no less). It's hard even to add up all the virtue-signalling points you score with that. And it wasn't just Republicans who felt that way about slapping Assad around, so did Dems, no matter how much they hate Trump.
If there were 59 missiles launched and 23 hit in the airport area, then the Ruskies might have shot down or electronically waylaid 36. This is just a wild guess and there's no proof, but it might be closer to the truth than what US gov, and MSM is reporting? Just something to ponder. In the absence of facts the sheeple will believe the prevailing malarkey that they hear from the fake news media, aka propaganda.
#33. To: hondo68 (#32)
I tend to trust the Tomahawks. In all the thousands we launched at Iraq, only one or two failed. I recall our recovery effort to get one back that fizzled and crashed without exploding. I seem to recall a second Tomahawk failed too. The Tomahawk is loved because it is so versatile and so reliable. It is our workhorse missile. And a lot more affordable than some of our other missiles.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestThe U.S. attack was retaliation for a Syrian chemical attack
#8. To: Deckard (#6)
(Edited)
The U.S. attack was retaliation for a Syrian chemical attack
#18. To: Gatlin (#8)
However, the Syrian air base from which the chemical attack was launched is a different matter.
#20. To: sneakypete (#18)
(Edited)
There are reports of heavy damage …
In a photo released by the Russian state-owned news outlet, Sputnik, the remains of two planes are seen
underneath a shelter following the U.S. missile attack on an air base in Syria, April 7, 2017.
Russia said only 23 of the 59 missiles fired from US warships hit their mark, but that six Syrian jets and several buildings were destroyed in the attack. There are reports of heavy damage …
In a photo released by the Russian state-owned news outlet, Sputnik, the remains of two planes are seen
underneath a shelter following the U.S. missile attack on an air base in Syria, April 7, 2017.
#22. To: sneakypete, Tooconservative, All (#20)
#26. To: Gatlin (#22)
This picture shows 44 hits….21 more than the Russians said, and 14 less that the US Navy said.
#28. To: Tooconservative (#26)
I suppose I must be an extreme cynic not to just take their word for it.
#31. To: Gatlin (#28)
If you could show good reason the Navy lied....I could join with you.
#32. To: Tooconservative (#31)
Replies to Comment # 32. If there were 59 missiles launched and 23 hit in the airport area, then the Ruskies might have shot down or electronically waylaid 36. This is just a wild guess and there's no proof, but it might be closer to the truth than what US gov, and MSM is reporting?
End Trace Mode for Comment # 32.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]